NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-30235

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 1:15-cr-00065-SPW-1 v. 1:15-cr-00065-SPW

THOMAS GREGORY BAILEY,

MEMORANDUM*

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 9, 2023** Portland, Oregon

Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and FORREST and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

Defendant Thomas Gregory Bailey (“Defendant”) appeals the district court’s

order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(A). We review the district court’s denial of compassionate release for

abuse of discretion. United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021). We

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion

for compassionate release. A district court has discretion to deny a motion for

compassionate release based solely on an analysis of the factors set forth in 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021).

Here, the district court properly considered the § 3553(a) factors: it considered

Defendant’s sentence, the sentencing court’s stated reasons for making

Defendant’s sentences consecutive, and Defendant’s criminal history. The district

court recognized Defendant’s good work during his time in prison but concluded

that Defendant “still has a significant debt left to pay,” and therefore,

compassionate release was not warranted.

Because we conclude the district court properly exercised its discretion to

deny compassionate release based on an analysis of the § 3553(a) factors, we need

not address Defendant’s argument regarding his eligibility for safety valve relief

under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).

AFFIRMED.

2